Posted on 03/11/2010 7:42:55 AM PST by jpl
Maybe to you.
So yes, there has been collusion on temperature data supposedly “separately maintained.”
"Collusion" implies some kind of subterfuge. All of this is ascertainable through published papers.
And I LOVE how important stuff in a quote gets dropped. Like this:
"In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. Independent satellite IR measurements showed that our extrapolations of anomalies into the Arctic were conservative."
THIS JUST IN: ... Scientists analyze data differently! ... Scientists sometimes reach different conclusions from analyses of same data ... Scientists differ on best way to correct and average data ... Scientists occasionally work together to improve data analyses ...
Still working on that analysis of stratospheric cooling I suggested? That would indicate an actual interest in the issue rather than just interested in trying to prod me.
More later. Because I sometimes enjoy being prodded (blush).
If I give someone the means to do a specific task, and then they do something else with that resource, "I" am not to blame....they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.